8 ms·

What are terahertz waves useful for?

56 points by prostoalex 5y ago

john567 5y ago
This site should be banned. Tried to read stuff. Got 3 different floating dialogs, a consent screen and the some exit modal crap on top. Accidentally missclick and ended up somewhere else completely. Dear God, they are ruining the Internet and every website out there.
- lazyweb 5y ago
  Yes, it's bad. The only thing the site needs to work is a CDN [1]. It's like web cancer. I count no less than SEVENTEEN OTHER external sites trying to inject resources. Must be a new high score. [1] https://i.imgur.com/NPaEFSr.png https://i.imgur.com/NPaEFSr.png
marcodiego 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Terretta 5y ago
I don’t understand the “Electromagnetic Spectrum Infographic” that purports to illustrate a continuum from sound to light where what’s changing is frequency, and says “radio spectrum” has “perceptible sounds”. Which ones of these things are not like the other ones? Conventionally, sound waves are a vibration traveling through an object and cannot travel through a vacuum, while light is* a wave of oscillating electromagnetic fields that can travel fine through a vacuum. In more detail: https://socratic.org/questions/how-are-sound-waves-different-from-light-waves https://socratic.org/questions/how-are-sound-waves-different... OK, there’s this on “Sensation of Hearing in Electromagnetic Fields” but not at these frequencies: “The "hearing" of electromagnetic waves is an established fact. It appears that this takes place by direct stimulation of the nervous system, perhaps in the brain, thus bypassing the ear and much of the associated hearing system. It is a possible, perhaps the most probable, explanation of the reports of hearing meteors and auroras” — https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scalar_tech/the_hum/ingalls.htm https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scalar_tech/the_hum/ingal... So, not so much “hear” as “perceive” perhaps. But I doubt this is what the graphic is suggesting either. I fear grade school kids reading this PopSci issue could be mislead for a while about why they can hear the radio. * for interesting values of “is”
- cookiengineer 5y ago
  I mean, it's popsci.com...what did you expect? /s Yeah, the article confuses a lot of physics and doesn't make sense from a wavelength standpoint. Of course, light has similar properties than electromagnetic waves, but sound definitely doesn't have anything to do other than it can be described with wavelengths. If you approach the terahertz spectrum, however, resonance is getting a little complicated because it can hit the natural vibrations of molecules. I guess that's what the author was trying to write about in terms of potential medical/scanning applications. As moving molecules physically in order to create terahertz frequencies seems unfeasible (as of now, u know, because lack of vacuum to make it possible), the only possibility is to generate electromagnetic frequencies and/or light based emissions. Electromagnetic frequencies for transmission on that scale get complicated real fast though, due to interference and basically everything making it worse, from humidity to infrared waves until basically all longer molecules. Finding a molecule to use this as a transmission medium in something like a chip as a circuit is a whole other question. Overall I think the article tries to make "this is ohmagerd" point without understanding the basic physical interactions, laws and properties.
  - danielmittleman 5y ago
    Light IS an electromagnetic wave, so to say it has similar properties to EM waves is kind of like saying that pizza has similar properties to food. Also not sure what you mean by "needs a vacuum to make it possible" seeing as we generate terahertz radiation in air all the time, using a variety of techniques that use off-the-shelf commercial products. As far as I can tell, the article doesn't say very much that is outright false, although for sure he glosses over some fairly complex concepts with very little detail in a few cases. His statement about "a few dozen meters" of propagation range is outright false, but other than that he more or less got the facts right.
    - cookiengineer 5y ago
      Touche, you're right. I should've worded that differently in the moment. I was trying to come from the perspective of the author, where he tries to argue about difference of appliances through technological means. E.g. using a laser for communication vs using a wifi like transmitter setup. Both are EM waves but the practicality of the environment with degradation and radiation and the medium that are common for us (gases in the air) make the approach of how to reach the target vibration (in the sense of targeting a specific antenna length on a specific wavelength) harder when trying to use the sub infrared spectrum. As I wanted to say, I think finding the right material and medium will be a huge challenge in this regard.
FooBarWidget 5y ago
I don't understand the problem the article mentions. It says we can't produce terahertz waves while showing an infographic showing that visible light are terahertz waves...
- danielmittleman 5y ago
  It does not say that we can't produce terahertz. It says that there are no consumer products that make use of terahertz, because (among other reasons) producing it is more challenging than, say, producing microwaves. That statement is correct. When people say "terahertz radiation", they do NOT mean visible light. They are referring to radiation between (roughly) 0.1-10 THz, which is much lower frequency than visible light.
  - raziel2701 5y ago
    Well then the article is terrible at communicating science. I had the same confusion arise as many others in this thread and it looks like in order to understand the article you already needed to have understood all the jargon and what the problem is a priori.
aeonik 5y ago
I wish they wouldn't call it Terhertz waves. The article states that we haven't been able to harness THz waves, but the author shows a visual diagram clearly showing that visible light falls completely in the Terhertz range, even making up 39% if the entire THz spectrum. Far Infrared is much more specific. If THz is really that desired on the title, calling it low band THz would probably be better.
- fsh 5y ago
  They are referring to the ITU "Terahertz" band which is defined to range from 300 GHz to 3 THz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_spectrum#ITU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_spectrum#ITU
- SigmundA 5y ago
  Yes I almost thought it was an April fools joke article like dihydrogen oxide dangers.
- willis936 5y ago
  Engineers and physicists have long referred to low THz RF as such and not with optical terms. Also, there are many low THz applications but nature doesn't make it easy to work with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_gap
- danielmittleman 5y ago
  By now, it has become standard terminology in the research community to use the phrase "terahertz radiation" to mean EM waves between 0.1-10 THz (although some people prefer 0.3-30 THz, and there are also other options out there). There is no uniform and universally agreed-upon definition. But the bottom line is this: the term is never used to refer to infrared (e.g., 100 THz) or visible light (e.g., 500 THz). This part of the spectrum has previously been lumped into the "far infrared", and sometimes called "submillimeter waves", and in the old old days was called "mega-mega cycles". The reason that there is so much confusion about the terminology to describe this spectral range is that it lies outside of the purview of both optics people and RF engineers. It is the "in between" region, which until recently was unfamiliar to most scientists. So there has been a lot of borrowing terms from different communities going on, and these communities have often not coordinated with each other. It's a bit of a mess, but we live with it.
LWIRVoltage 5y ago
So, i'm just an enthusiast/geek who owns Long Wave Thermal Cameras- and while the article wasn't the clearest to me,- All em waves, whether light, UV, radio, gamma, etc- can be measured in frequency - so yes, I see why one person is confused- but no, it's just measuring them all in THZ waves instead of nanometers or HZ, but the scale of the spectrum gets big, so they chose that one arbitrarily it seems./ And yes, the graphic mentioning sound- I am not sure what that chosen graphic is actually getting at...I suppose it's more about frequency. Regarding the Terahertz part of the spectrum- it's neat, in that it's really the area after far infrared, well, blending from that- into Microwave. So, it's got a longer wavelength, than far infrared, and can penetrate further into materials in general(except some materials which are opaque, of course )- and less energy..../ I find it neat because the deeper you go into the spectrum from an imaging standpoint(something they don't talk about here)- you start to see some unique effects- Example; in a thermal image, people glow because they emit, mostly in the LWIR thermal band(not MWIR, though they glow there too) - as you go deeper and deeper ,they don't emit as much, but they still do- meanwhile, the penetration against waver vapor, gets better and better the deeper you go- so ultimately, you could build imagers that see even farther through bad weather, but still give a unique view of the world with it's own unique properties. We're actually talking about superman-level vision, i suppose. There's a LOT of other uses for accessing more of the spectrum, but the terahertz, and passive millimeter wave- and further, isn't used in as many applications as it could be yet, due to some problems that have never been bothered to really have been addressed, like the increasing wavelength(not insurmountable) and the chips and sensors required to access those bands... Example: Driverless cars with access to sensors across more of the spectrum, from long wave infrared ,to longer- would allow passively seeing through rain and fog and obscurants to a better and better degree- and while active sensors are good, passive ones 100% won't interfere with anything else. Medical imaging- how many conditions of the human body cna be seen, if you just keep going up and down the scale in the right wavelength? Thermal imaging already sees MANY medical conditions on people (I can also confirm this having seen...things like Reynaulds Syndrome on people , just walking around with my thermal cameras in public to my surprise(It was said people who noticed it and pointed it out to me when looking at my thermal cameras) ) - Xray wavelengths don't necessarily see everything - there's a whole lot of spectrum aside fromthem I leave any fellow geeks who love seeing this stuff, with these images from around the web- To give an idea of what the world looks like as you go further in the spectrum. http://www.vision4thefuture.org/s4_resources/2_passive.htm http://www.vision4thefuture.org/s4_resources/2_passive.htm [throwing in an Image of the world Further down the spectrum at the passive millimeter-wave area, to be exact, 90 GHZ) https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Photographs-and-corresponding-90-GHz-images-taken-with-the-ABOSCA-imaging-radiometer_fig2_225000895 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Photographs-and-correspo... [Radio Wave imaging of satellites in the sky at 10-12 ghz , couldn't resist throwing this one in- sadly it appears No ground level imaging has been done in these bands, but it would take effort to set up a radio-wave imager, it'd also be a bit large and unwieldy- though still useful} https://www.orbiter-forum.com/threads/the-amateur-radio-astro-imagery-thread.33123/#post-506015 https://www.orbiter-forum.com/threads/the-amateur-radio-astr...
hamandcheese 5y ago
> Light-producing technologies like lasers, which are right at home in infrared, don’t work with terahertz waves either. What about red, green, blue lasers?
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
  Those are yet higher wavelengths. Terahertz is 10e12 hz, visible light starts around 4.5e14 hz.
danielmittleman 5y ago
There's a lot of misinformation in the comments posted here. Maybe this bit of information will help. The phrase "terahertz radiation" refers specifically to the band of the electromagnetic spectrum lying between 0.1 THz and 10 THz. The boundaries are arbitrary, and not well agreed upon. Some people say 0.3-30 THz, instead. But the basic idea is the same: it is the realm of the spectrum that lies between the region of microwaves and the region of infrared. It has historically also been called "far infrared" and "submillimeter waves" (submillimeter refers to the wavelength). When people say "terahertz radiation", they are NOT referring to visible light (which has a frequency of hundreds of terahertz). My evaluation of the text of this article is that it is mostly accurate, although sometimes some concepts are skimmed over a bit quickly. There is one blatantly false comment about the propagation distance for terahertz radiation in air being limited to "a few dozen meters" - that's just plain false. But other than that, everything he wrote is reasonable.
sydthrowaway 5y ago
Is it possible to make an antenna that radiates teraherrz radiation?
- danielmittleman 5y ago
  Yes. We do it all the time. In some sense, the tricky part is not the antenna itself. It's the electronics that you use to drive it. Electronics can be fast enough to drive an antenna at a few GHz, which is why it is easy to generate microwaves: just hook up some fast electronics to a microwave antenna. But there are few (if any) electronics fast enough to drive an antenna at these high frequencies (like 1 THz).
  - sydthrowaway 5y ago
    Will it look like a beam of light?
    - ddingus 5y ago
      Not to us, and that's the interesting bit in this EM range. It will be more light like than microwaves are, but less light like than light is. And what we can learn from using that range is still new ground because it's hard to make devices that emit RF in those ranges.
    - danielmittleman 5y ago
      Your eyes cannot see THz radiation, so no. It's invisible to the human eye. Like microwaves. But yes, it is possible to produce a beam. Also: to be fair, the challenge in finding efficient sources is really only one of the challenges. Not even the biggest one.
  - jimmySixDOF 5y ago
    There are many 80GHz +/- systems for short haul backbone links started at 1Gbps and these were marketed as wireless fiber for building to building intercity type connections. They have a "pencil" shaped beam and suffer from rain fade / sand storms / etc but are used in the field for special cases. Heres a quick example: [1] http://www.aowireless.com/about-us/wireless-partners/wireless-backhaul-product-information-downloads/gigabit-wireless-bridgewave-ge80 http://www.aowireless.com/about-us/wireless-partners/wireles...
SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
6G Actually. No joke there. The joke will be that if they go forward and try and make a case for using terahertz waves from your phone to 3D map your environment. If you think the knee jerk to 5G is bad, hold on to your tin foil.
- danielmittleman 5y ago
  We have been (reluctantly) using the term "6G" in grant proposals for several years now. It's not that new, actually.
alexalx 5y ago
love the ads

56 points by prostoalex 5y ago

This site should be banned. Tried to read stuff. Got 3 different floating dialogs, a consent screen and the some exit modal crap on top. Accidentally missclick and ended up somewhere else completely. Dear God, they are ruining the Internet and every website out there.

lazyweb 5y ago
Yes, it's bad. The only thing the site needs to work is a CDN [1]. It's like web cancer. I count no less than SEVENTEEN OTHER external sites trying to inject resources. Must be a new high score. [1] https://i.imgur.com/NPaEFSr.png https://i.imgur.com/NPaEFSr.png

marcodiego 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Terretta 5y ago

I don’t understand the “Electromagnetic Spectrum Infographic” that purports to illustrate a continuum from sound to light where what’s changing is frequency, and says “radio spectrum” has “perceptible sounds”. Which ones of these things are not like the other ones? Conventionally, sound waves are a vibration traveling through an object and cannot travel through a vacuum, while light is* a wave of oscillating electromagnetic fields that can travel fine through a vacuum. In more detail: https://socratic.org/questions/how-are-sound-waves-different-from-light-waves https://socratic.org/questions/how-are-sound-waves-different... OK, there’s this on “Sensation of Hearing in Electromagnetic Fields” but not at these frequencies: “The "hearing" of electromagnetic waves is an established fact. It appears that this takes place by direct stimulation of the nervous system, perhaps in the brain, thus bypassing the ear and much of the associated hearing system. It is a possible, perhaps the most probable, explanation of the reports of hearing meteors and auroras” — https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scalar_tech/the_hum/ingalls.htm https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scalar_tech/the_hum/ingal... So, not so much “hear” as “perceive” perhaps. But I doubt this is what the graphic is suggesting either. I fear grade school kids reading this PopSci issue could be mislead for a while about why they can hear the radio. * for interesting values of “is”

cookiengineer 5y ago
I mean, it's popsci.com...what did you expect? /s Yeah, the article confuses a lot of physics and doesn't make sense from a wavelength standpoint. Of course, light has similar properties than electromagnetic waves, but sound definitely doesn't have anything to do other than it can be described with wavelengths. If you approach the terahertz spectrum, however, resonance is getting a little complicated because it can hit the natural vibrations of molecules. I guess that's what the author was trying to write about in terms of potential medical/scanning applications. As moving molecules physically in order to create terahertz frequencies seems unfeasible (as of now, u know, because lack of vacuum to make it possible), the only possibility is to generate electromagnetic frequencies and/or light based emissions. Electromagnetic frequencies for transmission on that scale get complicated real fast though, due to interference and basically everything making it worse, from humidity to infrared waves until basically all longer molecules. Finding a molecule to use this as a transmission medium in something like a chip as a circuit is a whole other question. Overall I think the article tries to make "this is ohmagerd" point without understanding the basic physical interactions, laws and properties.
- danielmittleman 5y ago
  Light IS an electromagnetic wave, so to say it has similar properties to EM waves is kind of like saying that pizza has similar properties to food. Also not sure what you mean by "needs a vacuum to make it possible" seeing as we generate terahertz radiation in air all the time, using a variety of techniques that use off-the-shelf commercial products. As far as I can tell, the article doesn't say very much that is outright false, although for sure he glosses over some fairly complex concepts with very little detail in a few cases. His statement about "a few dozen meters" of propagation range is outright false, but other than that he more or less got the facts right.
  - cookiengineer 5y ago
    Touche, you're right. I should've worded that differently in the moment. I was trying to come from the perspective of the author, where he tries to argue about difference of appliances through technological means. E.g. using a laser for communication vs using a wifi like transmitter setup. Both are EM waves but the practicality of the environment with degradation and radiation and the medium that are common for us (gases in the air) make the approach of how to reach the target vibration (in the sense of targeting a specific antenna length on a specific wavelength) harder when trying to use the sub infrared spectrum. As I wanted to say, I think finding the right material and medium will be a huge challenge in this regard.

FooBarWidget 5y ago

I don't understand the problem the article mentions. It says we can't produce terahertz waves while showing an infographic showing that visible light are terahertz waves...

danielmittleman 5y ago
It does not say that we can't produce terahertz. It says that there are no consumer products that make use of terahertz, because (among other reasons) producing it is more challenging than, say, producing microwaves. That statement is correct. When people say "terahertz radiation", they do NOT mean visible light. They are referring to radiation between (roughly) 0.1-10 THz, which is much lower frequency than visible light.
- raziel2701 5y ago
  Well then the article is terrible at communicating science. I had the same confusion arise as many others in this thread and it looks like in order to understand the article you already needed to have understood all the jargon and what the problem is a priori.

aeonik 5y ago

I wish they wouldn't call it Terhertz waves. The article states that we haven't been able to harness THz waves, but the author shows a visual diagram clearly showing that visible light falls completely in the Terhertz range, even making up 39% if the entire THz spectrum. Far Infrared is much more specific. If THz is really that desired on the title, calling it low band THz would probably be better.

fsh 5y ago
They are referring to the ITU "Terahertz" band which is defined to range from 300 GHz to 3 THz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_spectrum#ITU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_spectrum#ITU
SigmundA 5y ago
Yes I almost thought it was an April fools joke article like dihydrogen oxide dangers.
willis936 5y ago
Engineers and physicists have long referred to low THz RF as such and not with optical terms. Also, there are many low THz applications but nature doesn't make it easy to work with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_gap
danielmittleman 5y ago
By now, it has become standard terminology in the research community to use the phrase "terahertz radiation" to mean EM waves between 0.1-10 THz (although some people prefer 0.3-30 THz, and there are also other options out there). There is no uniform and universally agreed-upon definition. But the bottom line is this: the term is never used to refer to infrared (e.g., 100 THz) or visible light (e.g., 500 THz). This part of the spectrum has previously been lumped into the "far infrared", and sometimes called "submillimeter waves", and in the old old days was called "mega-mega cycles". The reason that there is so much confusion about the terminology to describe this spectral range is that it lies outside of the purview of both optics people and RF engineers. It is the "in between" region, which until recently was unfamiliar to most scientists. So there has been a lot of borrowing terms from different communities going on, and these communities have often not coordinated with each other. It's a bit of a mess, but we live with it.

LWIRVoltage 5y ago

So, i'm just an enthusiast/geek who owns Long Wave Thermal Cameras- and while the article wasn't the clearest to me,- All em waves, whether light, UV, radio, gamma, etc- can be measured in frequency - so yes, I see why one person is confused- but no, it's just measuring them all in THZ waves instead of nanometers or HZ, but the scale of the spectrum gets big, so they chose that one arbitrarily it seems./ And yes, the graphic mentioning sound- I am not sure what that chosen graphic is actually getting at...I suppose it's more about frequency. Regarding the Terahertz part of the spectrum- it's neat, in that it's really the area after far infrared, well, blending from that- into Microwave. So, it's got a longer wavelength, than far infrared, and can penetrate further into materials in general(except some materials which are opaque, of course )- and less energy..../ I find it neat because the deeper you go into the spectrum from an imaging standpoint(something they don't talk about here)- you start to see some unique effects- Example; in a thermal image, people glow because they emit, mostly in the LWIR thermal band(not MWIR, though they glow there too) - as you go deeper and deeper ,they don't emit as much, but they still do- meanwhile, the penetration against waver vapor, gets better and better the deeper you go- so ultimately, you could build imagers that see even farther through bad weather, but still give a unique view of the world with it's own unique properties. We're actually talking about superman-level vision, i suppose. There's a LOT of other uses for accessing more of the spectrum, but the terahertz, and passive millimeter wave- and further, isn't used in as many applications as it could be yet, due to some problems that have never been bothered to really have been addressed, like the increasing wavelength(not insurmountable) and the chips and sensors required to access those bands... Example: Driverless cars with access to sensors across more of the spectrum, from long wave infrared ,to longer- would allow passively seeing through rain and fog and obscurants to a better and better degree- and while active sensors are good, passive ones 100% won't interfere with anything else. Medical imaging- how many conditions of the human body cna be seen, if you just keep going up and down the scale in the right wavelength? Thermal imaging already sees MANY medical conditions on people (I can also confirm this having seen...things like Reynaulds Syndrome on people , just walking around with my thermal cameras in public to my surprise(It was said people who noticed it and pointed it out to me when looking at my thermal cameras) ) - Xray wavelengths don't necessarily see everything - there's a whole lot of spectrum aside fromthem I leave any fellow geeks who love seeing this stuff, with these images from around the web- To give an idea of what the world looks like as you go further in the spectrum. http://www.vision4thefuture.org/s4_resources/2_passive.htm http://www.vision4thefuture.org/s4_resources/2_passive.htm [throwing in an Image of the world Further down the spectrum at the passive millimeter-wave area, to be exact, 90 GHZ) https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Photographs-and-corresponding-90-GHz-images-taken-with-the-ABOSCA-imaging-radiometer_fig2_225000895 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Photographs-and-correspo... [Radio Wave imaging of satellites in the sky at 10-12 ghz , couldn't resist throwing this one in- sadly it appears No ground level imaging has been done in these bands, but it would take effort to set up a radio-wave imager, it'd also be a bit large and unwieldy- though still useful} https://www.orbiter-forum.com/threads/the-amateur-radio-astro-imagery-thread.33123/#post-506015 https://www.orbiter-forum.com/threads/the-amateur-radio-astr...

hamandcheese 5y ago

> Light-producing technologies like lasers, which are right at home in infrared, don’t work with terahertz waves either. What about red, green, blue lasers?

jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
Those are yet higher wavelengths. Terahertz is 10e12 hz, visible light starts around 4.5e14 hz.

danielmittleman 5y ago

There's a lot of misinformation in the comments posted here. Maybe this bit of information will help. The phrase "terahertz radiation" refers specifically to the band of the electromagnetic spectrum lying between 0.1 THz and 10 THz. The boundaries are arbitrary, and not well agreed upon. Some people say 0.3-30 THz, instead. But the basic idea is the same: it is the realm of the spectrum that lies between the region of microwaves and the region of infrared. It has historically also been called "far infrared" and "submillimeter waves" (submillimeter refers to the wavelength). When people say "terahertz radiation", they are NOT referring to visible light (which has a frequency of hundreds of terahertz). My evaluation of the text of this article is that it is mostly accurate, although sometimes some concepts are skimmed over a bit quickly. There is one blatantly false comment about the propagation distance for terahertz radiation in air being limited to "a few dozen meters" - that's just plain false. But other than that, everything he wrote is reasonable.

sydthrowaway 5y ago

Is it possible to make an antenna that radiates teraherrz radiation?

danielmittleman 5y ago
Yes. We do it all the time. In some sense, the tricky part is not the antenna itself. It's the electronics that you use to drive it. Electronics can be fast enough to drive an antenna at a few GHz, which is why it is easy to generate microwaves: just hook up some fast electronics to a microwave antenna. But there are few (if any) electronics fast enough to drive an antenna at these high frequencies (like 1 THz).
- sydthrowaway 5y ago
  Will it look like a beam of light?
  - ddingus 5y ago
    Not to us, and that's the interesting bit in this EM range. It will be more light like than microwaves are, but less light like than light is. And what we can learn from using that range is still new ground because it's hard to make devices that emit RF in those ranges.
  - danielmittleman 5y ago
    Your eyes cannot see THz radiation, so no. It's invisible to the human eye. Like microwaves. But yes, it is possible to produce a beam. Also: to be fair, the challenge in finding efficient sources is really only one of the challenges. Not even the biggest one.
- jimmySixDOF 5y ago
  There are many 80GHz +/- systems for short haul backbone links started at 1Gbps and these were marketed as wireless fiber for building to building intercity type connections. They have a "pencil" shaped beam and suffer from rain fade / sand storms / etc but are used in the field for special cases. Heres a quick example: [1] http://www.aowireless.com/about-us/wireless-partners/wireless-backhaul-product-information-downloads/gigabit-wireless-bridgewave-ge80 http://www.aowireless.com/about-us/wireless-partners/wireles...

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago

6G Actually. No joke there. The joke will be that if they go forward and try and make a case for using terahertz waves from your phone to 3D map your environment. If you think the knee jerk to 5G is bad, hold on to your tin foil.

danielmittleman 5y ago
We have been (reluctantly) using the term "6G" in grant proposals for several years now. It's not that new, actually.

alexalx 5y ago

love the ads